A Home Run for Property Owners Faced with Trip and Fall Allegations Pertaining to Height Differentials on Sidewalks, Driveways, Parking Lots and Stairwells
September, 2005
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District recently affirmed summary judgment for defendants finding that a 4-5 inch height differential between a metal grate aligning a sidewalk and nearby tree did not create a pitfall, trap or snare, and thus was not unreasonably dangerous. Mazin v. Chicago White Sox, Ltd., 2005 WL 425418 (2005).
Facts
Plaintiff was standing on a metal grate outside U.S. Cellular Field after a Chicago White Sox night game. The sidewalk outside Cellular Field has several metal grates that surround the base of trees aligning the sidewalk. The grates are level with the sidewalk and surround the base of the trees. Plaintiff was standing on one of these grates waiting for friends when someone called his name. He turned around and stepped into the gap between the grate and the tree. When the friend approached plaintiff and tapped him on the shoulder, plaintiff fell, seriously injuring his foot which was jammed into the gap. He filed a negligence claim against the Chicago White Sox, the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and the City of Chicago. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to present evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition. The trial court granted the motions, finding that plaintiff had failed to prove that the condition of the tree grate was a “pitfall, trap, snare or other like obstruction” and as such, unreasonably dangerous.
On appeal, plaintiff argued that the area where he fell was a sidewalk not a parkway, and even -- assuming that the area was deemed to be a parkway -- that the City of Chicago breached its duty by failing to maintain the area free of “pitfalls, traps and snares.”
Analysis
The First District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Chicago, finding that the area where plaintiff fell was a parkway rather than a sidewalk because the tree and the surrounding grate were intended to beautify the walkway and interrupted the flow of traffic of the adjacent sidewalk. The addition of the decorative metal gate did not change the nature of the parkway. The City’s duty was limited to protecting pedestrians from “unreasonably dangerous conditions in the nature of a pitfall, trap, snare or other like obstruction.” It was undisputed that the distance between the grate and the soil measured approximately 4-5 inches.
The court relied on Barnhisel v. Village of Oak Park, 311 Ill. App. 3d 108 (1st Dist. 1999), in reaching its decision. In Barnhisel, plaintiff argued that a 2-1/4 inch height differential between the sidewalk and a “tree cut-out parkway” was unreasonably dangerous when she caught the tip of her left shoe on what was described to be a piece of raised and broken concrete. The tree cut area appeared to be a relatively narrow strip running adjacent to the street from the curb past the mid-point of the sidewalk and extending approximately 2/3 of the width of the sidewalk, thus leaving approximately 1/3 of the width of the sidewalk for pedestrian traffic. Plaintiff alleged that the tree cut-out area was approximately 2-1/4 inches lower than the sidewalk and measured 72 inches long and 67 inches wide. She argued that the cause of her fall was not the differential between the sidewalk slab, but, rather the differential between the sidewalk and the tree cut-out area. The Village argued that summary judgment was proper based on the Tort Immunity Act and because the tree cut-out area was a parkway, the plaintiff was not an intended user of the parkway and therefore, the Village did not owe a duty of care. The Village also argued that the tree cut-out area was open and obvious and not a trap, snare or pitfall.
The Barnhisel court affirmed summary judgment for defendant, finding that “the height differential did not create an unreasonably dangerous condition or obstruction for which the Village would owe a duty of care; it prevented a dangerous condition from occurring.” The court determined that the tree cut-out area was a parkway and that plaintiff was an intended and permitted user; it then focused on determining the extent of the Village’s duty of care with respect to the parkway. The court disagreed with plaintiff’s contention that the tree cut-out area significantly decreased the width of the sidewalk making it foreseeable that a pedestrian might lose her balance and be forced into the cut-out area. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the parkway created an unreasonably dangerous condition because it significantly decreased the width of the adjacent sidewalk. The court found that there was ample space for pedestrian traffic by two persons and that the height differential between the areas was slight and would not pose a dangerous obstruction in the nature of a pitfall, trap or snare.
In Mazin, the appellate court determined the height differential between the grate and the soil below was a customary condition of the parkway, just like a space in between the tree trunk and the center of the grate. Such conditions allow the tree to grow and prevent the soil from seeping onto the pavement when it rains. In addition, the court stated that the condition of the grate made a flush surface with the sidewalk, thus creating a safer condition than that existing in Barnhisel. Because plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that the conditions of the grate and tree amounted to a pitfall, trap or snare, summary judgment for the City of Chicago was proper.
Learning Point:
When faced with similar arguments, premises owners should argue that any sort of height differential on a sidewalk, driveway, parking lot, etc. is not unreasonably dangerous because such a height differential is customary and does not create an unreasonably dangerous condition or obstruction for which defendants would owe a duty of care. •
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v3) 2005 Volume 3 Table of Contents
